Abstract
An evolutionary model for sex differences in disease risk posits that alleles conferring higher risk in one sex may be protective in the other. These sexually antagonistic (SA) alleles are predicted to be maintained at frequencies higher than expected under purifying selection against unconditionally deleterious alleles, but there are apparently no examples in humans. Discipline‐specific terminology, rather than a genuine lack of such alleles, could explain this disparity. We undertook a two‐stage review of evidence for SA polymorphisms in humans using search terms from (i) evolutionary biology and (ii) biomedicine. Although the first stage returned no eligible studies, the second revealed 51 genes with sex‐opposite effects; 22 increased disease risk or severity in one sex but protected the other. Those with net positive effects occurred at higher frequencies. None were referred to as SA. Our review reveals significant communication barriers to fields as a result of discipline‐specific terminology.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
